User talk:Jeff Meredith
Welcome Hi, welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the Al McWhiggin page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! GrayWolf2 (talk) 03:10, May 18, 2014 (UTC) can you please add the article of lord zedd and rita repulsa asap Why do you think Stinky Pete the prospector is the secondary antagonist of Toy Story 2? Because he doesn't play as big a role as Al does. I understand but that was because he was hiding his the true colors until the end of the movie. So does his role in Toy Story 2 stay like that? I suppose he's not all main, just secondary but true. If you believe that he's secondary why did you put on the Disney wiki site that He's the secondary but later true main antagonist? I don't mean to argue with you. Because it's pretty much obvious. Do you love the film Wreck-It Ralph? I was just figuring out the true ranks. Oh that's alright besides your pretty fast at typing their ranks on both this Disney villains wiki site and the villains wiki site. Al Just to let you know once again, thanks for fixing that for me. It was my fault, I alway's click on random articles by mistake and undo some edits by accident. Thanks for fixing it. Anthony Nichols (talk) 04:00, January 14, 2015 (UTC) Careful If you feel you can present a strong enough case as to why these kinds of "secondary/tertiary/quad-whatever" antagonists should stay, I'm willing to listen. I haven't found anything so far that says it's useful, but I'm willing to change my stance if someone can present a compelling enough reason for a particular subject. Just be careful. Don't let emotion sway you like it did when you changed the King Louie page a few hours ago. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 06:03, May 22, 2015 (UTC) Disagreements on antagonists You've disagreed with my decision to remove information about antagonists on this wiki. The issue has never been whether or not a character is an antagonist. The issue is that people can't make up their minds about what kind of antagonist a character is and have been getting into fights over it. Even you've done this. I took a look at quite a few of your edits on this wiki. Here are some examples of how you can't make up your mind: * For The Huns, on March 16, you first said they were the tertiary antagonists, then three minutes later, you said they were the quaternary antagonists. On July 1st, you changed it back to tertiary. * For Leonidas, you first said he was the main antagonist on March 22nd, but then on July 13, you changed it to say "main, later secondary antagonist". * For Amos Slade, he was the "main later antagonist" on March 13, then he was the "main human/secondary antagonist" on March 28, then on April 9, he was the "secondary antagonist-turned-antihero". But on July 2nd, Amos was the "main, later secondary antagonist and later anti-hero". You got into an edit war with TheSitcomLover over on the Monsters Inc. Movies wiki for over five months about antagonists. I even saw that on Al McWhiggin's page on this wiki in August last year and in April this year, you put in edit summaries of "Don't ignite the antagonist war anymore" and "Someone has said, 'No antagonist wars'", so you acknowledge that trying to rigidly define what kind of antagonist a character is is not helpful. But in checking your edits, I see that you are trying to take this even further by saying there are "replacements" of one antagonist for another, "plots to be outranked by" antagonists, "plots to reveal" antagonists and "misinformation campaigns to hide the true main villain". It has been a while since I've watched Bedknobs and Broomsticks, but it seems unlikely that there is any sort of meeting or conference or any kind of strategy session where the characters in the movie decide that the lion in the animated segment is going to made to appear more important than he really is so that Nazi officer in the live-action segment can be the main antagonist. It is also unlikely that there is any kind of interview or article or documentary that shows that the people making the movie put it on record that they plotted and made a deliberate storytelling decision to make that lion less of an antagonist than the Nazi officer. But on the slim chance that you may be right, I went out and bought that movie on Friday. I am going to watch the movie and every bonus feature included with it to see anything close to what you are claiming. I will state up front that I do not expect to find anything like this, but if I do, I will say so. Frankly, I thought the 161 different ways of calling Randall Boggs an antagonist was ridiculous. But the idea that there are "campaigns" and "plots" to make one character more of an antagonist than another is more ridiculous. It is that kind of ridiculousness that led me to take a serious look at rigidly labeling characters as antagonists. I have not seen any benefit to it and many ways why it is harmful to a wiki. If it was used to give a general sense of the character's place in the story, maybe it would be useful. But it's not being used that way. The antagonist labels are being used to line all of the characters up in a row and say "this character is this specific kind of an antagonist, which makes them more of an antagonist than that one", and meanwhile, everyone keeps repositioning the characters in the lineup, fighting over that lineup. As a result, there is a policy against antagonist fussing that is now in effect. I've put it into effect here and a couple of wikis and I will be talking to the admins on some other wikis about whether they want to ban antagonist fussing as well. You've shown that you can make useful edits that don't relate to antagonist fussing. I really don't want to lose you as an editor on any wiki where I'm an admin. But if you cannot stop contributing to the problem and trying to expand the problem, then you will be subject to being blocked as per that policy and will not be welcome here very much longer. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 01:28, July 20, 2015 (UTC)